Appeal No. 2005-1539 6
Application No. 09/799,275
turning over the plate so that that surface is facing the burner element (8). Such an
argument also ignores the embodiment of the buffer member seen in Figure 3 of Barker,
which clearly has pockets or pyramid shaped members that narrow downwardly in the
same manner as appellants’ hollow elements (32) seen in Figures 2B and 2C of the
present application. Thus, we find appellants’ argument that Barker discloses the
opposite of the grilling surface defined in claim 16 on appeal to be unpersuasive. As for
appellants’ further assertion that Barker obviously functions for a different purpose, and
the detailed discussion bridging pages 10 and 11 of the brief concerning exactly how
appellants’ device is intended to work, we need only note that no such details of the
exact operation of appellants’ grilling surface are set forth in claim 16.
Since we agree with the examiner that claims 9 and 16 on appeal are clearly
readable on the structure seen in Barker Figure 3 and also on the buffer member (2) of
Figure 1 in its reversed orientation (described in column 3, lines 17-24) wherein surface
(14) would face the burner element (8) and surface (16) would face upwardly, we will
sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Barker.
As for the examiner’s rejection of claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
based on Latour, we are in agreement with the examiner’s position as set forth on
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007